What does a democrat state AG do when a sting catches only democrats?

A sting operation designed to nab dishonest politicians in the act of accepting bribes was abruptly shut down by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane. The only politicians caught were Democrats; Kane is a Democrat.

The sting was set in morion in 2010 by Kane’s predecessor in office and current governor, Republican Tom Corbett, and politicians from both major political parties were tested, according to Philly.com.

Why would she do that, you ask?

In a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer Friday, “Kane called the investigation poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism,” Philly.com reported.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett put the sting operation into action and it involved the use of a corrupt lobbyist who was facing prosecution for a $430,000 fraud case.

Those close to the investigation told the Philadelphia Inquirer that a number of state legislators were also among those caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Philly.com reported:

Four state lawmakers took money, the sources said. State Rep. Ronald G. Waters accepted multiple payments totaling $7,650; State Rep. Vanessa Brown took $4,000; State Rep. Michelle Brownlee received $3,500; and State Rep. Louise Bishop took $1,500, said people with knowledge of the investigation.

Bishop denied receiving money. Brownlee said she couldn’t recall taking a payment, and Brown declined to discuss the matter.

Kane employed the usual left wing canard in defense of her actions:

Kane began shutting down the investigation soon after she assumed office in 2013. Those who have reviewed the transcripts and records claim the sting yielded some 400 hours of audio and videotaped bribe offers to politicians. She made it official Friday.

Kane declined an interview with the Inquirer but offered a statement, in which she claimed the investigation was flawed due to orders allegedly issued to target “only members of the General Assembly’s Black Caucus” while ignoring “potentially illegal acts by white members of the General Assembly.”

A source close to Frank G. Fina, who was the lead prosecutor in the operation, called Kane’s assertions a “desperate smear” founded in falsehoods.

Her allegation is also difficult to fathom given that the investigation itself was a joint effort between state personnel and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Now, rather than explain and defend her actions, Kane has lawyered up. Additionally, she has taken to attacking those who would question her.

Rather than justify her decision, Kane chose to attack those who questioned it, according to the Inquirer:

In the statement, Kane provided only one quote, dismissing those who questioned her decisions as “nothing more than the Good Ol’ Boys club playing political games to discredit me in order to fulfill their own selfish and improper agenda.”

It becomes really curious as Pennsylvania’s highest ranking lawyer won’t answer any questions in person. Her lawyer is speaking for her

But rather than cooperate directly with the press, the attorney general chose to hire her own attorney to speak on her behalf. The Inquirer reported:

During the meeting, Sprague [Kane’s new lawyer] suggested that The Inquirer may have been used by the sources of its stories – “wittingly or unwittingly” as a “weapon” to attack Kane to defend themselves from potential charges of wrongdoing in the management of the probe.

Kane’s lawyer has hinted darkly about taking action against the Philadelphia Inquirer for daring to investigate:

“I intend to look at the investigation from the very beginning to the conclusion of it, and in terms of what has been published, by this paper and others, to take appropriate action on behalf of the attorney general against those responsible for the defamatory and the false publications that have been made,” Sprague told the Inquirer.

Laws are for little people, i.e. not democrats.

Not everyone is buying the racial assertions, including Seth Williams:

Like a lot of us, I have listened as Kathleen Kane, the attorney general of Pennsylvania, has cycled through what are, in my view, escalating excuses for her refusal to pursue evidence of political corruption. I’ve watched as she publicly attacked respected career prosecutors and investigators in a desperate attempt to absolve herself. I’ve made few comments to date but believe it’s time for a more detailed response.

I will start with the explosive charges of racism Kane has bandied about. As the first, and only, elected African American prosecutor in Pennsylvania, I am offended. I have seen racism. I know what it looks like. This isn’t it.

Let me tell you first about the chief investigator in the case, who has been accused by Kane of taking orders to “target” black officeholders and ignore white ones. Like me, he is a black man. He works in my office now.

Kane apparently is less than forthcoming:

Kane alleges that these prosecutors, out of revenge, left her holding a damaged political-corruption case that she was forced to drop, and that they then leaked the story to the press in order to besmirch her reputation. But I have looked into the facts, and they conclusively disprove this charge. These prosecutors didn’t leak this story, and I believe that not just because they told me; I believe it because the reporters themselves have said so. Kane should know that too, because those reporters have explicitly advised her office that these prosecutors were not the source of the story.

Kane has the accused recorded in their own voices and she asserts they could not be prosecuted?

But I’m familiar with the newspaper reports, and with the attorney general’s extensive comments disparaging her own case. Her central complaint, as I understand it, is that she couldn’t possibly prosecute, no matter how obvious the corruption, because the witness who recorded the payoffs was offered immunity for serious criminal charges he himself was facing.

In other words, she apparently has electronic recordings of numerous elected officials taking money while promising their votes – and she has to let them off scot-free because she would be incapable of convincing a jury of their guilt?